Russia’s assertion that its annexation of Crimea is actually a “reunification” is misleading. No ethnic group has constituted the majority in perpetuity in Crimea. Affiliated with the Ottoman Empire, Crimea was a part of Crimean Khanate between 1449 and 1778, with a predominantly Tartar population, before Russia’s Catherine the Great conquered it in 1783.

Between 1853 and 1856, Britain, France, the Ottomans and Sardinia fought the Crimean War against Russia. That war is significant in Western history for two events: By nursing injured soldiers, Florence Nightingale pioneered the nursing profession, and Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s poem “Charge of the Light Brigade” immortalized the near-suicidal mission of the British Light Brigade during the Battle of Balaclava.

An 1897 census found Crimea’s population to be 36 percent Tartar, 33 percent Russian and 12 percent Ukrainian. After Joseph Stalin expelled all Crimean Tartars to Central Asia in 1944, a 1959 Soviet census recorded a Tartar population of 0 percent. In 1954, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev made Crimea a part of Ukraine, then a Soviet province. A 2001 Ukrainian census lists Crimea’s population as 58.5 percent Russian, 24.4 percent Ukrainian and 12.1 percent Tartar. History, therefore, discredits Russia’s exclusive claim on Crimea.

Russian agents provocateurs are currently destabilizing Ukrainian-majority eastern Ukraine. Concurrently, there is incessant anti-U.S. propaganda on Russian television. Yet, U.S. response has been rather tentative.

Since military intervention is not an option, America should propose a sports ban on Russia. Suspending sports links with Russia will be a painless way to make the Kremlin see the wisdom of leaving Crimea. Unlike economic sanctions, there is little chance of a blowback. Over time, sports-starved Russian fans will be berating Mr. Putin.

The playbook for a sports ban on an errant nation already exists. Sports boycotts played a pivotal role in the dismantling of South Africa’s apartheid regime (1948-1994).

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) withdrew South Africa’s invitation for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics when it refused to field a racially integrated team. South Africa was formally expelled by the IOC in 1970.

The English cricket team cancelled its proposed tour of South Africa in 1968, when the apartheid regime objected to a “colored” native South African, Basil D’Oliveira, on the English team. The International Cricket Council imposed a moratorium on tours to South Africa in 1970.

Although the International Rugby Board did not expel South Africa during the apartheid era, 25 African nations boycotted the 1976 Olympics when the New Zealand Rugby team toured South Africa that summer and the IOC refused to ban New Zealand from the Montreal Olympics. South Africa was banned from the first two Rugby World Cups in 1987 and 1991.

Rugby and cricket were especially popular among white South Africans. The cumulative impact of expulsions and boycotts in every major sport had a devastating effect on the morale of white South African sportsmen and their fans, which put enormous pressure on the government to end the painful sports drought.

Engaging in sporting activities with other nations is not a right; it is a privilege. If racial discrimination in sports by South Africa warranted severing sports contacts with it by other nations, invasion of a neighbor and annexation of its territory require a strong response as well. The IOC should seriously consider expelling Russia from its membership for annexing lands belonging to another IOC member, Ukraine. FIFA should consider banning Russia from this year’s World Cup soccer tournament in Brazil.

Russia is fully integrated into the world of sports. Several Russian tennis players train, play and live in the U.S. More than 30 Russians play in the NHL. A Russian businessman owns NBA’s Brooklyn Nets. Many Russian soccer players play for clubs in western European leagues. A sports ban will hurt Russia, and make it an international pariah. It will have little adverse economic consequences for the West.

In the aftermath of Russian annexation of Crimea, if the Union of European Football Associations puts Russia’s membership in the organization to a vote, the verdict would be a resounding “no.” Russian soccer teams will then be unable to compete in European competitions. Sports isolation will not only earn Mr. Putin the ire of Russia’s sports fans, it will also empower those Russians who oppose Mr. Putin’s territorial crimes in Crimea.

The ban should not penalize individual Russian sports personalities. However, until the Russian army leaves Crimea, Russian players should not be allowed to play under the Russian flag. It is the world’s prerogative to enforce a sports ban on a nation that commits the ultimate sin of annexing a territory belonging to another sovereign nation.

Should Russia restore Crimea to Ukraine, the ban can be quickly reversed. South Africa provides the model for reconciliation. Black South Africans, including Nelson Mandela, used to root against all South African teams during the apartheid era. Barely a year after Mandela’s release from prison in 1990, with his blessing, the sports boycott of South Africa ended.

Surprising white South Africans, President Mandela visited the South African players’ locker room and cheered the Springboks to victory in the 1995 Rugby World Cup final, an event vividly captured in the 2009 movie “Invictus.” If it mends its ways, Russia, too, can expect a speedy rehabilitation.

Fakhruddin Ahmed, D. Phil., is a Rhodes scholar. He lives in West Windsor.